To what extent was the fall of Nicholas II inevitable—did he have opportunities to address these crises and failed to do so, or were they beyond any hope of correcting once Russia chose to move forward with war in 1914?
During Tsar Nicholas II’s reign, Russia was facing political and social instability as many were demanding reforms be made to the throne. Yet Nicholas II refused to diminish the power of the throne, worsening the unrest and making revolution inevitable. At the age of 26, Nicholas II prematurely became tsar after Alexander III died. Nicholas II was ill-prepared, as his father sheltered him from most state affairs prior to Alexander III’s death, and was a talentless leader which proved to be a problem as a strong monarchy demands a good leader. He was against democratic reforms and called zemstvos, or public assemblies that worked to facilitate social change, “senseless dreams” which angered many subjects. He disregarded the economic hardships many of his subjects faced and unrest was rising amongst the subjects. After the disaster of the Russo-Japanese War, most lost any confidence they had in his ability to lead. In January 1905, St. Petersburg was overcome with strikes as workers marched on Nicholas’ palace. This event became known as “Bloody Sunday” after Nicholas II sent Russian soldiers to fire at this protesters. After this, protests and strikes against Nicholas II became frequent. Nicholas II was eventually forced into transforming the monarchy into a constitutional monarchy in an attempt to stabilize the country. However, he did not follow through as many had hoped he would. While he create Duma, an elected assembly, he decreased its powers and effectiveness. By doing this, he managed to upset everyone, even those who supported the constitutional monarchy who thought the creation of Duma was foolish. The last alienating factor for the Russian public was the monarchy’s close ties with Grigori Rasputin, a mystic, holy man who many scorned as a fraud.
What was the relationship between the actions taken by Nicholas II during the war and the perceptions of the influence of Grigori Rasputin in the fall of the Russian monarchy?
At the start of the war, Russia was not prepared to enter the war yet Nicholas II decided to personally command an army with limited ammunition and officers. He was blamed for any military failures that the Russians faced and left his wife, Alexandra, to command the government on the homefront. Alexandra, however, heavily relied on Rasputin, a mystic who the royal family employed to “heal” their hemophiliac son Alexis. Alexandra greatly trusted Rasputin and believed that he had a mystical relationship with God and many claim she allowed Rasputin to influence her decisions. However, there is not much evidence to support the theory that Rasputin changed civil or public policy. Yet the public strongly opposed Rasputin, believing he had a large influence on state affair and was a corrupt fraud. Therefore, when Nicholas II left the home front to command the army, most citizens were unhappy. While Rasputin was murdered in 1916, uprisings and protests continued in Russia as many people were wanted to end the monarchy as public opinion of Nicholas II declined.
What were the crises facing the Russian home front by 1917? To what extent was the Tsar responsible, and to what extent was he simply the most logical scapegoat?
By 1917, Tsar Nicholas II was still commanding the army at war despite the worsening conditions at the home front. He ignored advice from advisers and relatives to return to stabilize the country and address the concern of his subjects. The government had become disorganized and was beginning to collapse as the public’s dissatisfaction became more and more apparent. On March 8, 1917, violent protests broke out in Petrograd that lasted several days and resulted in the mutiny of many garrisons. Nicholas II was forced to recognize and address these problems on the home front. In an attempt to save the monarchy, he renounced his throne for his brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich, who declined because he recognized that the public no longer would accept a tsarist regime. While public opinion toward the monarchy had been changing for quite some time, Nicholas II was largely responsible for the severity of the crises Russia faced in 1917 as refused to address the issues until they directly threatened his power. His gradual alienation from the public through his disregard for reforms and trust for Rasputin resulted in worsening unrest that eventually led to the assassination of his family, which BBC thoroughly covered in an episode of Infamous Assassinations seen here.
Sources "Grigori Rasputin." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013. "Nicholas II." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
The February Revolution of 1917 What were the most significant causes of the February Revolution, and what led to its eventual success?
One of the biggest causes of the February Revolutions (also called the “March Revolution” and the “First Russian Revolution”) was WWI. Due to the war many men had to be drafted and the majority of these men were farmers. This left a gaping hole of farmers and farm hands that couldn't really be filled. Over time the shortage of workers led to food shortages and prices of food rising, which eventually led to anger and unrest among the general public. All of this anger culminated in street protest in which Tsar Nicholas II ordered troops to open fire on the people. However many of the soldiers did not listen to him and fired on their officers, hence joining the revolution. Food Scarcity reached the climax during the winter time, when due to the old weather and lack of food a famine broke out in Russia which left 100% of the population POed. There was also no way of food to go into the city because almost all of the railroads were being used to aid the war effort by transporting materials, troops, etc. To make matters worse, the Tsar (Nicholas II) decided to take over the war and go out into the battlefield. Not only was this bad because war defeats were now pinned on his back, but also he left the day to day actions of the country in the hands of his wife. His wife made the situation 100 times worse, by refusing to work with the Duma and replacing good workers with slackers and “scoundrels”. The Revolution can be considered a success in that it forced the Tsar to abdicate his throne, because he was being a terrible leader and neglecting his people. The Tsar was replaced by the Due; Powers, which were the Russian Provisional Government and the Petrograd Society. What led to the “success” of the February Revolution was that the people got what they wanted, which was a new government and a tsar who was out of a job.
What were the primary efforts for reform of Kerensky and the Mensheviks, and to what extent were they attainable?
Kerensky was one of the most prominent leaders of the February Revolution. One of the main efforts by Kerensky was that after the July Days, when many of the Bolsheviks were captured, Kerensky abolished capital punishment, granted free speech, made Russia a republic (These were all plus points and overall they were beneficial to the common people of Russia) and did whatever he could to keep Russia involved in WWI, which was contrary to popular opinion. He was heavily criticized for this because many people felt Russia was tired after many years of fighting and that keeping troop in the war was futile at this point. These were attainable for a short period of time, however all of this would change and new people (Stalin, Lenin, etc) would come into power and at the same time some others would lose power during the October Revolution. The Mensheviks were supposed to join forces with the Bolsheviks during the 1917 revolution, and most of their ideas and goals for the country aligned. Many of the Bolsheviks’ prominent leaders, such as Stalin, were coming back from exile and were looking forward to the reunification. But Lenin was opposed to it, and proclaimed that the Bolsheviks needed to take on a more “anti war direction”, which along with other things made reunification implausible. Hence they took the side of the Provisional Government and wanted to strengthen the government for the sake of “saving the revolution” .The Mensheviks also opposed war communism, as was most of the general public. Eventually this was attained when Lenin and his new regime surrendered in Dec 1917, thus ending Russia’s stint in WWI.
Why did the February Revolution ultimately fail? What were the consequences for Russia of the failure of Kerensky’s Provisional Government? The February Revolution ultimately failed because there needed to be another “revolution” (October Revolution) to correct some of the fallacies of it. Not everything was resolved in the February Revolution. The tsar was forced to abdicate his throne and people were elated at this, but they still had to fight a world war which many of the people weren't to happy about, and there was still massive food shortages and people weren’t completely happy yet. There was also a battle for power, as the Dual Powers were being tested by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, etc. The failure of the Provisional Government led to the eventual takeover by the Bolsheviks and also that many of the reforms that people had wanted took place, yet their conditions were poor. Despite the tsar being abdicated, I mean yes the people were happy there weren't being tormented on a daily basis by a nonsensical tsar, but their living predicaments and situations had not changed as drastically as many of them hoped. There was still food shortage and unrest in Russia. Eliminating the autocracy hadn’t completely fixed the situation for the Russians, and they were still going to have to fight an uphill battle before they would get exactly what they wanted.
How were Lenin and the radical Bolsheviks able to maneuver their way into power in October 1917? They promised an end to involvement of Russia in World War 1, redistribution of land from rich elites to peasants, and an end of food shortages and manufactured goods. These revolutionary ideas were favored amongst the soldiers, workers and peasants (mass population). Through the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin, and the radical Bolsheviks, they were able to take advantage of the current political and social situations under the Provisional Government of Russia at the time. Factors that help lead them to power:
Inefficiencies with the Provisional Government
Lenin: He was an intelligent, dominant leader who was able to plan the takeover of a government. His leadership skills were extremely detrimental to the Bolsheviks, and helped lead them to reform. The Bolsheviks were strictly organized and had disciplined members that followed under the orders of Lenin and other commanding Bolsheviks.
Popular Sayings: “Peace, Bread, Land”; “All Power to the Soviets”
Published in Lenin’s April Thesis
These gained a large support from the public masses who tired of war, hunger, and hardship
Private Army: The Red Guards (or the private Bolshevik army) was devoted to the revolution lead by Lenin and was maintained in premium condition by Leon Trotsky. The Red Guards provided the Bolsheviks the military force to win.
What failures of the Provisional Government were they able to exploit, and how did they do it? The Provisional Government was never an actual government. It was a temporary government that did not have strong authoritative ruling, as well as never enacting on major reforms. One of its major failures was the continuation of Russia’s war efforts within WWI. The constant losses were unacceptable to the people of Russia, and would slowly turn them against the PR. As the people started to turn away from the PR, they were more prone to following the slogans of Lenin, such as “Peace, bread, and land”.
Land:
The people of Russia demanded for land reforms, but the Provisional government halted to do so, in doing so, enraged peasants took land without authorization
War:
Both soldiers and citizens were tired of the continuation of war
Because the PR did not want to lose in any way, they launched an attack on Germany (specifically the Galician Offensive), which resulted in utter failure
The failure of this attack resulted in uproar amongst the Russian People, leading to July Days, which was a uprising of unprompted protests against the PR
Economy:
Under the PR there were shortages of food, fuel and raw materials
This shortage was detrimental to the economy and the mood of the Russian People
Failure to Stop Opposition
The PR did not effectively deal with groups that opposed the Pr. this would allow for other groups, such as Lenin and the Bolsheviks, to gain popularity amongst the people against the PR.
What were the primary reform efforts of the Bolsheviks, and to what extent were they attainable? What were the costs for Russia of pursuing them?
Following Lenin’s slogan of Peace, Land, and Bread, the primary reforms consisted of even distribution of land amongst peasants, peace with Germans, removing Russia from WWI, and overall improving the lifestyle and working conditions of the general working population. Rather than having ideological theories, the Bolsheviks used practical means to address these issues, allowing them to be more attainable.
Some immediate laws include:
Russia made a quick exit from WWI
Land would be transferred to peasants immediately
Workers would run the production and distribution of goods
The Bolshevik gov’t would seize over banks, foreign trade, large industries and the railways
Discrimination derived from class, nationality, sex, or religion would be illegal
The cost of Russia pursuing these reforms/ decrees was that it did not receive the support from everyone. Those who belonged to an aristocratic background did not agree/approve of the reformations. Along with the aristocrats, members of different political parties were angered by the power gained by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The reformations resulted in a growth in power for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Once realizing that this power would not be dispersed between other political parties, small uprisings and anger sprouted from the members of these parties.
To what extent was the October Revolution truly revolutionary? How does it represent a complete departure from the old order, and to what extent is it little or no departure at all?
The October Revolution has all the characteristics of a coup d’etat, but in actuality it could be considered more than that. The revolution was more of a large response to the popular movement that was taking place amongst the people of Russia. The ideas of the Bolshevik party coincided with the ideals of people, which allowed for the population to stand by and permit the Lenin and Bolshevik takeover. The people believed that the takeover was in name of the soviets, in name for them, the people, but it would ultimately be for Lenin and the uprising of communism.
Russia had primarily begun with a Tsar, who was forced to renounce his thrown, and ultimately killed, along with his entire family. The Provisional Government that was constructed should have restored the authority of the state, but did not. This allowed for other political groups to rise to power: ultimately being Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. Russia began with a oppressive bureaucratic police state under the Tsar but in the end, would result in a oppressive, bureaucratic police state under Communists (Lenin and the Bolshevik Party).
Although the October Revolution was truly revolutionary, in the fact that a small political party was able to gather popularity and overthrow the Provisional Government within Russia, it cannot be concluded as a complete departure from the old order in that the rise of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party would ultimately result in the same oppressive government, but now under Communism.
Sources:
Darby, Graham. "The October Revolution." History Review 288 (1997): n. pag. Questia. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.
Tarr, Russel. "Lenin in Power." History Today. History Review 2006, 2006. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.
- To what extent was the fall of Nicholas II inevitable—did he have opportunities to address these crises and failed to do so, or were they beyond any hope of correcting once Russia chose to move forward with war in 1914?
- During Tsar Nicholas II’s reign, Russia was facing political and social instability as many were demanding reforms be made to the throne. Yet Nicholas II refused to diminish the power of the throne, worsening the unrest and making revolution inevitable. At the age of 26, Nicholas II prematurely became tsar after Alexander III died. Nicholas II was ill-prepared, as his father sheltered him from most state affairs prior to Alexander III’s death, and was a talentless leader which proved to be a problem as a strong monarchy demands a good leader. He was against democratic reforms and called zemstvos, or public assemblies that worked to facilitate social change, “senseless dreams” which angered many subjects. He disregarded the economic hardships many of his subjects faced and unrest was rising amongst the subjects. After the disaster of the Russo-Japanese War, most lost any confidence they had in his ability to lead. In January 1905, St. Petersburg was overcome with strikes as workers marched on Nicholas’ palace. This event became known as “Bloody Sunday” after Nicholas II sent Russian soldiers to fire at this protesters. After this, protests and strikes against Nicholas II became frequent. Nicholas II was eventually forced into transforming the monarchy into a constitutional monarchy in an attempt to stabilize the country. However, he did not follow through as many had hoped he would. While he create Duma, an elected assembly, he decreased its powers and effectiveness. By doing this, he managed to upset everyone, even those who supported the constitutional monarchy who thought the creation of Duma was foolish. The last alienating factor for the Russian public was the monarchy’s close ties with Grigori Rasputin, a mystic, holy man who many scorned as a fraud.
- What was the relationship between the actions taken by Nicholas II during the war and the perceptions of the influence of Grigori Rasputin in the fall of the Russian monarchy?
- At the start of the war, Russia was not prepared to enter the war yet Nicholas II decided to personally command an army with limited ammunition and officers. He was blamed for any military failures that the Russians faced and left his wife, Alexandra, to command the government on the homefront. Alexandra, however, heavily relied on Rasputin, a mystic who the royal family employed to “heal” their hemophiliac son Alexis. Alexandra greatly trusted Rasputin and believed that he had a mystical relationship with God and many claim she allowed Rasputin to influence her decisions. However, there is not much evidence to support the theory that Rasputin changed civil or public policy. Yet the public strongly opposed Rasputin, believing he had a large influence on state affair and was a corrupt fraud. Therefore, when Nicholas II left the home front to command the army, most citizens were unhappy. While Rasputin was murdered in 1916, uprisings and protests continued in Russia as many people were wanted to end the monarchy as public opinion of Nicholas II declined.
- What were the crises facing the Russian home front by 1917? To what extent was the Tsar responsible, and to what extent was he simply the most logical scapegoat?
- By 1917, Tsar Nicholas II was still commanding the army at war despite the worsening conditions at the home front. He ignored advice from advisers and relatives to return to stabilize the country and address the concern of his subjects. The government had become disorganized and was beginning to collapse as the public’s dissatisfaction became more and more apparent. On March 8, 1917, violent protests broke out in Petrograd that lasted several days and resulted in the mutiny of many garrisons. Nicholas II was forced to recognize and address these problems on the home front. In an attempt to save the monarchy, he renounced his throne for his brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich, who declined because he recognized that the public no longer would accept a tsarist regime. While public opinion toward the monarchy had been changing for quite some time, Nicholas II was largely responsible for the severity of the crises Russia faced in 1917 as refused to address the issues until they directly threatened his power. His gradual alienation from the public through his disregard for reforms and trust for Rasputin resulted in worsening unrest that eventually led to the assassination of his family, which BBC thoroughly covered in an episode of Infamous Assassinations seen here.
Sources"Grigori Rasputin." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
"Nicholas II." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
The February Revolution of 1917
What were the most significant causes of the February Revolution, and what led to its eventual success?
One of the biggest causes of the February Revolutions (also called the “March Revolution” and the “First Russian Revolution”) was WWI. Due to the war many men had to be drafted and the majority of these men were farmers. This left a gaping hole of farmers and farm hands that couldn't really be filled. Over time the shortage of workers led to food shortages and prices of food rising, which eventually led to anger and unrest among the general public. All of this anger culminated in street protest in which Tsar Nicholas II ordered troops to open fire on the people. However many of the soldiers did not listen to him and fired on their officers, hence joining the revolution. Food Scarcity reached the climax during the winter time, when due to the old weather and lack of food a famine broke out in Russia which left 100% of the population POed. There was also no way of food to go into the city because almost all of the railroads were being used to aid the war effort by transporting materials, troops, etc. To make matters worse, the Tsar (Nicholas II) decided to take over the war and go out into the battlefield. Not only was this bad because war defeats were now pinned on his back, but also he left the day to day actions of the country in the hands of his wife. His wife made the situation 100 times worse, by refusing to work with the Duma and replacing good workers with slackers and “scoundrels”. The Revolution can be considered a success in that it forced the Tsar to abdicate his throne, because he was being a terrible leader and neglecting his people. The Tsar was replaced by the Due; Powers, which were the Russian Provisional Government and the Petrograd Society. What led to the “success” of the February Revolution was that the people got what they wanted, which was a new government and a tsar who was out of a job.
What were the primary efforts for reform of Kerensky and the Mensheviks, and to what extent were they attainable?
Kerensky was one of the most prominent leaders of the February Revolution. One of the main efforts by Kerensky was that after the July Days, when many of the Bolsheviks were captured, Kerensky abolished capital punishment, granted free speech, made Russia a republic (These were all plus points and overall they were beneficial to the common people of Russia) and did whatever he could to keep Russia involved in WWI, which was contrary to popular opinion. He was heavily criticized for this because many people felt Russia was tired after many years of fighting and that keeping troop in the war was futile at this point. These were attainable for a short period of time, however all of this would change and new people (Stalin, Lenin, etc) would come into power and at the same time some others would lose power during the October Revolution. The Mensheviks were supposed to join forces with the Bolsheviks during the 1917 revolution, and most of their ideas and goals for the country aligned. Many of the Bolsheviks’ prominent leaders, such as Stalin, were coming back from exile and were looking forward to the reunification. But Lenin was opposed to it, and proclaimed that the Bolsheviks needed to take on a more “anti war direction”, which along with other things made reunification implausible. Hence they took the side of the Provisional Government and wanted to strengthen the government for the sake of “saving the revolution” .The Mensheviks also opposed war communism, as was most of the general public. Eventually this was attained when Lenin and his new regime surrendered in Dec 1917, thus ending Russia’s stint in WWI.
Why did the February Revolution ultimately fail? What were the consequences for Russia of the failure of Kerensky’s Provisional Government?
The February Revolution ultimately failed because there needed to be another “revolution” (October Revolution) to correct some of the fallacies of it. Not everything was resolved in the February Revolution. The tsar was forced to abdicate his throne and people were elated at this, but they still had to fight a world war which many of the people weren't to happy about, and there was still massive food shortages and people weren’t completely happy yet. There was also a battle for power, as the Dual Powers were being tested by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, etc. The failure of the Provisional Government led to the eventual takeover by the Bolsheviks and also that many of the reforms that people had wanted took place, yet their conditions were poor. Despite the tsar being abdicated, I mean yes the people were happy there weren't being tormented on a daily basis by a nonsensical tsar, but their living predicaments and situations had not changed as drastically as many of them hoped. There was still food shortage and unrest in Russia. Eliminating the autocracy hadn’t completely fixed the situation for the Russians, and they were still going to have to fight an uphill battle before they would get exactly what they wanted.
Videos for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NLNJ-GCccw (Basic info)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFDibsXEOs (General overview)
Bibliography
"February Revolution (in Russian History)." The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2013.Questia School. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
"Russian Revolution." The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2013. Questia School. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
"February Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution#Causes>.
"Russian Revolution: The February Revolution of 1917 | Infoplease.com."Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. | Infoplease.com. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. <http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/russian-revolution-the-february-revolution-1917.html>.
The October Revolution of 1917
How were Lenin and the radical Bolsheviks able to maneuver their way into power in October 1917?
They promised an end to involvement of Russia in World War 1, redistribution of land from rich elites to peasants, and an end of food shortages and manufactured goods. These revolutionary ideas were favored amongst the soldiers, workers and peasants (mass population). Through the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin, and the radical Bolsheviks, they were able to take advantage of the current political and social situations under the Provisional Government of Russia at the time.
Factors that help lead them to power:
- Inefficiencies with the Provisional Government
- Lenin: He was an intelligent, dominant leader who was able to plan the takeover of a government. His leadership skills were extremely detrimental to the Bolsheviks, and helped lead them to reform. The Bolsheviks were strictly organized and had disciplined members that followed under the orders of Lenin and other commanding Bolsheviks.
- Popular Sayings: “Peace, Bread, Land”; “All Power to the Soviets”
- Published in Lenin’s April Thesis
- These gained a large support from the public masses who tired of war, hunger, and hardship
- Private Army: The Red Guards (or the private Bolshevik army) was devoted to the revolution lead by Lenin and was maintained in premium condition by Leon Trotsky. The Red Guards provided the Bolsheviks the military force to win.
What failures of the Provisional Government were they able to exploit, and how did they do it?The Provisional Government was never an actual government. It was a temporary government that did not have strong authoritative ruling, as well as never enacting on major reforms. One of its major failures was the continuation of Russia’s war efforts within WWI. The constant losses were unacceptable to the people of Russia, and would slowly turn them against the PR. As the people started to turn away from the PR, they were more prone to following the slogans of Lenin, such as “Peace, bread, and land”.
What were the primary reform efforts of the Bolsheviks, and to what extent were they attainable? What were the costs for Russia of pursuing them?
Following Lenin’s slogan of Peace, Land, and Bread, the primary reforms consisted of even distribution of land amongst peasants, peace with Germans, removing Russia from WWI, and overall improving the lifestyle and working conditions of the general working population. Rather than having ideological theories, the Bolsheviks used practical means to address these issues, allowing them to be more attainable.
Some immediate laws include:
Russia made a quick exit from WWI
Land would be transferred to peasants immediately
Workers would run the production and distribution of goods
The Bolshevik gov’t would seize over banks, foreign trade, large industries and the railways
Discrimination derived from class, nationality, sex, or religion would be illegal
The cost of Russia pursuing these reforms/ decrees was that it did not receive the support from everyone. Those who belonged to an aristocratic background did not agree/approve of the reformations. Along with the aristocrats, members of different political parties were angered by the power gained by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The reformations resulted in a growth in power for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Once realizing that this power would not be dispersed between other political parties, small uprisings and anger sprouted from the members of these parties.
To what extent was the October Revolution truly revolutionary? How does it represent a complete departure from the old order, and to what extent is it little or no departure at all?
The October Revolution has all the characteristics of a coup d’etat, but in actuality it could be considered more than that. The revolution was more of a large response to the popular movement that was taking place amongst the people of Russia. The ideas of the Bolshevik party coincided with the ideals of people, which allowed for the population to stand by and permit the Lenin and Bolshevik takeover. The people believed that the takeover was in name of the soviets, in name for them, the people, but it would ultimately be for Lenin and the uprising of communism.
Russia had primarily begun with a Tsar, who was forced to renounce his thrown, and ultimately killed, along with his entire family. The Provisional Government that was constructed should have restored the authority of the state, but did not. This allowed for other political groups to rise to power: ultimately being Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. Russia began with a oppressive bureaucratic police state under the Tsar but in the end, would result in a oppressive, bureaucratic police state under Communists (Lenin and the Bolshevik Party).
Although the October Revolution was truly revolutionary, in the fact that a small political party was able to gather popularity and overthrow the Provisional Government within Russia, it cannot be concluded as a complete departure from the old order in that the rise of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party would ultimately result in the same oppressive government, but now under Communism.
Sources:
Darby, Graham. "The October Revolution." History Review 288 (1997): n. pag. Questia. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.
Tarr, Russel. "Lenin in Power." History Today. History Review 2006, 2006. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.